...the astrotheological explanation ... is the only one that has any merit at all. taking a historical reading is just untenable on several different grounds.
Yes, true. That is an important insight that sets up a good framework to analyse Biblical metaphor.
...we have in a sense two different creations. one is the earthly creation filled with people, hippies, and country music fans, and the other is a spiritual creation filled with angels and heaven.
On your principle that astrotheology provides the only explanation, I don't see how you separate the earthly and the spiritual. One criterion of separation in classical times was the orbit of the moon, with the sublunary or earthly temporal realm seen as susceptible to change and corruption, while the superlunary or heavenly eternal realm is perfect. Angels were often identified with planets, for example Lucifer as the morning star Venus, while God was identified with the sun, as the stable unchanging source of light and life. In reality, the sun and planets are just as material as the earth.
why the need for two? angels appeared to come first. weren't they enough glory for god? why did he need to create more? does he have security issues?
I know there is a note of mockery and derision in your questions here, but posing them presents an interesting question of method. Taking astrotheology as a methodological principle, we start by assuming the truth of the scientific consensus understanding of reality, in terms of matter ordered by physical law. As soon as we anthropomorphise matter by speaking of God and angels, we are in the realm of metaphor. It only can make sense to question God's motives if this questioning can be tied back to some real observable physical structure or cycle. Asking why God created humans is not an astrotheological question, because astrotheology understands myth as a human construction to explain natural events, not as a description of intentional entities.
... angels are capable of the same sort of capriciousness as man...specifically, lucifer. he was an angel who decided he had had enough of following god. so in the heavenly creation we have roughly a third of the angels rebelling against god. these were sent into hell while the loyal stayed in heaven. how is this not essentially the same narrative as with the earthly creation? both objects showed freewill and the ability to decide whether to follow god or not. there is no impetus for a second creation then. god got his morality play with the angels. to do the same thing again with humans is just redundant and superfluous.all in all this is just another case of how the metaphysic and story behind the bible just do not withstand abstract scrutiny.
Angels are invented by humans as a way of explaining natural events. The task of myth is to explain reality as we experience it. The fall of Lucifer mirrors the fall of man in the heavenly realm. Lucifer has something of a demiurge quality, with an arrogance that thinks he can equal the power of the creator. But that would be like the earth imagining it is a star. It is just wrong, and involves replacement of observation and logic by fantasy - the central problem of the fall from grace.
lucifer knows ... that god is, well...god. since we as finite humans with our puny little minds know enough about god to know that one can't possibly think that he can be defeated or thwarted (would kind of go against his nature as being god) we must then conclude that lucifer failed to get that memo. so on the one hand lucifer is a brilliant deceiver, yet on the other hand he is so stupid as to think that he could frustrate god's plan and defeat him. the concept of satan as the adversary is absolutely absurd in a monotheistic worldview. for how can you have a believable antagonist when he is going up against the lord of all reality? he would be a fool, and god would never make such a fool his most high.
This presents an interesting religious analysis of atheism. If atheists say god does not exist, then the question of defeating or thwarting god does not arise. But if, following Spinoza and Einstein, we define god as reality or nature, then we can see god cannot be defeated.
And yet, a big problem of our modern technological economy is that humans imagine they can control nature. This human hubris appears a forlorn and futile idea, but one that can readily be pursued until it is broken by the power of nature.
it is only within a dualist framework of polytheism that a satan character can have any teeth at all. in monotheism, satan is more akin to just another servant of god, albeit the most loyal of all as his duty will see him damned forever. i daresay no christian would follow god if he knew that hell was to be his reward.
That appears to be a misunderstanding of the traditional Augustinian monotheism, which sees Satan as not representing a real cosmic principle, but more as a tumorous corrupt perversion of the truth, twisted in such a way as to appear plausible for a time but in reality primed for destruction.
So Satan, as the principle of error, has teeth within monotheism, since he has the potential to consign humanity to extinction if he is not stopped by God.
regardless of how i think about these concepts they always reduce to absurdity. and it just never stops.
Very interesting speculation Ahriman, thanks for sharing. I don't agree with you that the concepts are absurd, since they make sense as mythic projections of the big archetypes of human existence.